A Victory That Needs Protecting

by publius

Good news on the net neutrality front.  The House stimulus bill released this week contains $6 billion for broadband deployment.  Even better, the current bill imposes pro-neutrality conditions – essentially, any provider who receives money must operate “open” networks.  To put it mildly, this is a sea change from four years ago.  And it’s very exciting.

Predictably, the big boys are trying to strip these provisions from the bill.  The Hill reports:

Open Internet access rules added to the stimulus package threaten the tentative partnership between technology and telecom companies, which have coalesced behind the bill’s $6 billion funding for broadband access.

It’s important to fight to protect these requirements.  Indeed, this is an area where vocal support from the netroots and other activists could make a big difference – and provide some important political cover for Democratic negotiators.

A common view of telecom issues is that it’s one giant battle between rival giant companies (see, e.g., the 1996 Act).  If public interest issues like net neutrality suddenly gain some traction, the argument goes, it’s only because they happened to implicate large content companies who could shoulder the lobbying burden.

That description is historically accurate, but I think (hope) times are changin’.  For one, the netroots itself is coming into its own as intra-Democratic “interest group.”  In addition, the telecom public interest community is much better organized – and more media savvy – than it used to be.  The success, for instance, of Free Press wrestling Comcast to the ground within the halls of a Republican FCC shows that corporations aren’t the only people at the table right now.

It’s important, then, for Democratic legislators to see – and hear from – these new voices.  They need to understand that adding these neutrality protections will be rewarded, and that removing them will have real political costs.

For instance, imagine if you are a Democratic legislator and you face the following two choices.  First, I could anger big telecom and cable companies and get no corresponding benefit.  Or, I could vote with them and no one would care.  If those are the two options, it’s not a difficult choice.  You should, as a rational actor, vote with the telecom companies every time.  Indeed, that’s the type of general public apathy that lobbyists require to get their agenda through.

If, however, there were a broader and louder movement pushing to keep the open access provisions in the bill, then the calculus changes.  It’s not a free kick anymore.  In this scenario, if the legislators vote with the telecom and cable companies, they’re going to hear about it.  If nothing else, hammering the drums gives legislators some cover.  Well, Mr. MoneySackforHead, I privately support you, but I can’t have all these cheetos-stained, pajamas-wearing bloggers hounding me.  You know how it is.

Internet policy is at an important crossroads – there’s a lot in the balance right now.  That’s why the election was so critical.  Neutrality has been the historical norm – and it's been a tremendous success.  Access providers, however, are fighting to change that (for privately rational reasons), a decision that would drastically change the nature of the Internet for future generations and impose tremendous costs (externalities) on the public at large. 

For that reason, it’s important to establish and reinforce neutrality as the “norm” as these battles proceed.  The more victories the “open” Internet can win, the harder it will become to treat openness as some wild-eyed socialist intervention in the market.  Thus, the fight to keep these conditions in this bill has much larger implications for future legislative and regulatory battles.

So go make some noise.  You can even send a letter right here.

Comments

[jonnybutter]

Thanks for keeping us apprised on this stuff, pub. It's crushingly important.

Neutrality has been the historical norm – and it's been a tremendous success. Access providers, however, are fighting to change that (for privately rational reasons)

Nothing incorrect about those sentences. I just chafe at the idea that this kind of parochial, short-term thinking ('private rationality') entirely deserves the 'rational' designation, any more than do the machinations which led to the housing bubble, toxic assets, etc. Is short-term thinking *really* rational?

Likewise the format/standards wars of which we seem to have an inexhaustible supply in recent decades. Create standards (like MIDI, DV, MPEG2, and many others) and business explodes; have wars over competing proprietary standards, and the market has to wait an extra xx years while things are litigated, etc.

The politicians' dilemma you describe I can understand. They - esp. in the House - live election to election. But business 'leaders'...? If I am waiting to be rescued and have 5 days' supply of water, and I drink the whole thing in one day because I ate something salty, you could understand why I would do that, but I wouldn't call it 'rational'. I'd call it 'stupid'.

[jonnybutter]

Shorter version:

Is mechanistic action really 'rational'? Isn't it the opposite?